The curse of a coalition


Even the most optimistic person cannot but infer that India is destined to be a coalition-run country for many years to come. Its political landscape is so jig-jagged that no party can make a simple majority in the 543-member Lok Sabha, the lower house. The Congress or the BJP, the two national parties which have been hovering around the 200-plus mark for a long time, may increase their tally by a few more members (or lose some) in the 2014 elections. Yet neither of the two look set to reach the dream figure of 272 to rule the country by itself.

The scenario evokes despondency because the functioning of the Vajpayee governments of the BJP from May 16 to June 1 in 1996 and from March 19, 1998 to May 22, 2004 and those of the Congress from 2004 till today have shown that the party in power has to give in on too many critical points to ensure the support of the coalition partners to stay in power.

The Congress has constituted the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), while the BJP headed National Democratic Alliance (NDA). The very word, Alliance, suggests that it is a combination of parties which have chosen to stay with one or the other in its own interest. The give and take is inherent in such an arrangement. Inevitably, what emerges is a hotchpotch of different interests that may serve the purpose for the time being.
Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee was bold enough to admit the other day that the economic reforms would have to wait till after the 2014 elections because what the government wanted to do was not acceptable to its allies. PM Singh has repeatedly said that his government has to follow the “coalition dharma,” meaning thereby even giving up key projects for accommodating the wishes of its supporters. In other words, his is a lame duck government which has no option other than dotting the I’s and crossing the T’s for the next two years. The status quo in the face of rising prices and the declining growth rate is not a healthy proposition.

The nation has to think over the prospects coolly and responsibly. The country cannot make a rapid progress because the parliamentary system, with all its plus points, is too dependent on a majority which is illusionary under the circumstances. By shutting eyes to the realities, the facts cannot be denied or wished away. The parliamentary system in India has succeeded to sustain democracy but has failed to deliver the goods. The 60 years of the system, celebrated this week, has made members realise that the situation as it has developed entails disruptions and walkouts. Is this good for a country which should be in a hurry to dent dismal poverty?

People should seriously consider the option to switch over to the presidential form of government. This too is democratic and transparent like in America and France. In this way, we will get the most acceptable face in the country because people from different parts of India would be voting directly for one person for a fixed tenure, say five years. He or she in turn would have all the attention and time to rule the country, not dependent on coalition or regional parties.

The president would not have to buy the support of MPs as the prime ministers of both the Congress and the BJP have done. In the process, the nation would feel more coherent and united. There will be parliament, the directly elected Lok Sabha and the indirectly elected Rajya Sabha—like the US Congress and the Senate. Powers of the houses can be redefined in the Indian context. No doubt, there is a danger that the president might turn into a dictator. But there would be checks and balances lest he or she should hijack the system.

India’s thinking on the presidential is flawed because it had the experience of Mrs Indira Gandhi who even as the PM became authoritarian. After having suffered the rigours of the emergency, parliament has changed the constitution and plugged the loopholes. Likewise, the nation would leave no leeway for a dictator to emerge once the presidential form is adopted.

In fact, the presidential form of government was debated at the constituent assembly. Many members favoured while others wanted safeguards against a totalitarian government. But Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, stopped any further debate by arguing that India had become used to the British parliamentary system when they accepted the state assemblies and the central assembly before independence. True, he did not face any difficulty in his 17-year rule. This was because one, he himself was a tall person, loved by the people for having been chosen by Mahatma Gandhi and, two, the Congress was in power in practically all the states.

In any case, parliament has already undergone a change because of the legislation which has made the domicile qualification for the Rajya Sabha members redundant. It was laid down that a Rajya Sabha member should ordinarily be a resident of the state which returns him or her through its assembly. One decade ago, both the Congress and the BJP hatched a conspiracy and substituted the word state with India. How does India make sense when the Rajya Sabha is the house of states? By dropping the domicile qualification, the two main political parties have opened the doors of the house to money bags. By doing so, the balance in the parliamentary system has been disturbed. The federal structure that the constitution framers had in mind has been demolished. The PM is ruling the country the way the head of a presidential system does, without owning the responsibility when his ill-thought policies fail to work.

In a democracy, it is important that people have faith in the system because otherwise the very basis of the state comes to be questioned. The reason why parliamentary system is not working in India is the confusion of clear direction in the absence of a single majority party, or arriving at a consensus among different parties. The presidential system provides the alternative in a person who will lead and direct the country.

The writer is a senior Indian journalist.

(The article was mistakenly attributed to M J Akbar, while it was in fact written by Kuldip Nayar. The mistake is  regretted and has been corrected.)


  1. I have always respected Mr Akabar's comments. But this one for me, goes a little too far.

    He makes it appear as if policy log-jam in India gets solved simply by changing over to a Presidential system. That's a bit like some Pakistanis saying that terrorism can be swiped clean if Americans go away.

    Before recommending the Presidential system, has the author considered how many times have American presidents complained of an 'uncooperative' Senate?
    Has he considered if its really a coalition that prevents the present Indian government to progress on land reform, legal/judicial reform, internal security, and indeed, corruption?

    Finally, how does he think will an executive President decide to continue a policy agenda, when his electorate is too splintered to agree – all within a democratic setup?

    You may be referring to borrow from the Chinese model, but that's an entirely different discussion.


  2. The mere fact that the President will be elected directly by peoples votes is what we need.When you have PM indirectly elected by his own kind (socalled elected reps of the unfortunate people) this is what you get Yousaf Gillani or Manmohan ji.

Comments are closed.